Skip to main content
Glama

Entertainment Feeds

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Validate Claim

validate_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
tolerance_pctNoMax percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial behavior: exact verdicts, the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, and the fact that could_not_verify is not evidence for or against a claim — none of that is in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The paragraph is dense but well-organized, leading with trigger phrases and usage, then return semantics, then critical caveats. It's not the shortest description, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity and no sentence is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the verdict values, citation format, and reasoning return. It also explains the two failure statuses and the fast-path vs grounded routing, making it complete for a complex verification tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters and provides detailed descriptions for both claim and tolerance_pct. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning (e.g., percent-delta math) beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific verb 'verify' and resource 'claim,' and opens with natural-language trigger phrases. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on claim verification against authoritative sources with a verdict output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' establishing when to choose it. It also explains the financial vs general routing and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Entertainment Feeds toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research. Similarly, bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze betting opportunities. These overlapping tools can cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow a snake_case pattern, but the verbs used are highly varied (ask_, bet_, compare_, deep_, discover_, entity_, fetch_, forget_, generate_, list_, pipeworx_, polymarket_, read_, recall_, recent_, remember_, resolve_, scan_, search_, subscribe_, suggest_, unsubscribe_, validate_). This lack of a consistent verb_noun pattern makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for an 'Entertainment Feeds' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to entertainment (e.g., SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED data, Polymarket betting). Many of these should belong to a separate 'data-access' server, making the scope unwieldy and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For an entertainment feeds server, the set is incomplete. It can list and read curated feeds and fetch arbitrary RSS, but lacks tools for managing subscriptions to those feeds, searching across feeds, or creating feeds. The inclusion of many non-entertainment tools doesn't compensate for these gaps.

Resources